On 11/15/2001 05:22:32 PM Michael Everson wrote:

>There are two points to this.
>1) The end user will never see the underlying encoding... All I need is my input
>method to be what conforms to my expectations, and my fonts to make
>sure that what I get is what I want, and my system to have sorting
>and searching algorithms that do what I need them to do.

I completely agree with this.

>2) Khmer has *already* been encoded. Khmer can already be written
>using Unicode. I understand what Svay Leng has said, that,
>culturally, Khmers are *taught* about the alphabet in a way which
>suggests that KA and COENG KA are two different things. But that is a
>different question from the question of encoding.

I likewise agree completely that cultural perceptions regarding the alphabet and encoding issues are related but *different* matters. Accordingly, I think the current encoding in the Standard should be judged on the basis of whether it allows for implementations that provide culturally expected behaviours with regard to input, rendering, sorting, etc., and not on whether the encoding itself directly corresponds to those cultural expectations. The very fact that cultural expectations can and have changed should tell us that a direct correspondence between that and encoding is not the right solution.

- Peter